Bank pressuring landlord to remove tenant

I'm nearly 4 months into a 12 month lease agreement that has no break clauses. Rent is paid on time every month.

The bank wants to take 'vacant possession' of the apartment and is apparently pressuring the landlord in some way such that the landlord has asked how soon we can move out.

I've had no contact with the bank at all and all I've heard from the landlord is that they are under pressure from the bank, the bank are seeking vacant possession, that they would like us to leave and that time is a concern for them.

My question is, if the bank wants to repossess the apartment, can they force the landlord to remove us? Surely they just have to take the property back and then deal with us and put up with receiving our rent in full and on time every month instead of it going to the current landlord?

Would it be possible for us to talk to the bank and try and figure out an arrangement that suits everyone, should I ask the landlord if I can do that? It would be a big deal for me and my family to have to look for somewhere new before the lease is up, we were planning on staying well beyond the initial 1 year lease (which we'd been told would be possible).

You are currently dealing with the owner of the property. The bank can re-posess the property by appointing a receiver if the associated loan is in arrears. The have obviously not done this to date and presumably are putting pressure on the landlord to sell the property. This will require vacant posession. You cannot talk to the Bank directly. You need to establish the current position directly with the landlord and whether he is intending to service notice on you to quit! He is the only person who can give you clarity at this time.

If you have a 12 month fixed term tenancy agreement the landlord cannot give you notice to vacate, unless you are in breach of your agreement, eg. late rental payment, anti-social behaviour, etc. Needing to sell the property is not a valid reason to break a fixed term lease.

You should tell your landlord that you have a fixed term contract and you intend to remain in the property until such time as the contract has expired. He should in turn provide a copy of the lease to his bank for their information.

44brendan said:

This will require vacant posession..

Click to expand...

In the past this used to be the case, but now tenant's have rights, so the landlord cannot serve notice on the tenant, no matter what pressure the bank is putting on him. Landlord should ask the bank under what legislation he is allowed to serve notice on the tenant.

Timmy, all you need to do is send an email to the PRTB who will tell you the landlord cannot force you to leave, under the circumstances you've outlined.

I was under the impression that if the property is being put up for sale, then 90 days notice is all that is required to secure vacant possession? That had been my recent reading of things unless things have changed in the recent past?

That only applies to a Part 4 tenancy agreement, not a fixed term agreement, and the amount of notice varies according to the length of the tenancy.

If you don't have an issue moving, get the landlord to pay for removal costs etc as an "incentive" to assist them.

It is common in mortgages have a clause forbidding the owner from entering into a lease without the written consent of the bank. If this clause was present then I don't think the bank can be held to the lease if they didn't consent to its granting.

That would be onerous on the bank to approve every lease...? If the bank did not specifically seek to enforce that clause before a tenancy, I doubt they could retrospectively seek to enforce it.

It must be noted here that it's the tenant that has posted, not the landlord. If the landlord looses control of the property, they may be better off moving anyway. A bank appointed receiver would not be as attentive as the owner landlord. It seems a folly to want to stay. While just a guess, there may be an economic factor at play here that makes staying here on current terms more preferable to moving. Again, just to state, a guess. It may not be relevant at all!!

I was thinking that the owner bought as an owner-occupier and it is that type of mortgage which would have such a clause. I can't imagine a buy to let mortgage having it for the reason you state.

Thanks for all your replies. I'm glad to hear that my understanding generally seems to be in line with other people's. I have asked Threshold for advice and they agree that I can't be made quit a fixed term agreement.

If you don't have an issue moving, get the landlord to pay for removal costs etc as an "incentive" to assist them.

Click to expand...

They've actually offered this incentive to us, and if we could find a suitable place to move to we probably would.

While just a guess, there may be an economic factor at play here that makes staying here on current terms more preferable to moving.

Click to expand...

There are a couple of reasons for the desire to stay, 1 of which is having a 1 year old who has already moved a couple of times and hoping this place would be where he'd grow up. The economic factor is there too, to move to a similar apartment in the same area we'd have to spend a bit more and probably wouldn't find somewhere unfurnished again, and we've just spent a huge amount on furniture.

I was thinking that the owner bought as an owner-occupier and it is that type of mortgage which would have such a clause

Click to expand...

The landlord did live in the apartment before us, they are reluctant landlords as far as I can tell.

The bank don't specifically need a vacant apartment: they need a saleable one.

I see two ideas that can be explored:
1. The apartment is sold as an investment property with (I presume) good tenants in situ.
2. The bank sell the apartment to you, as you would like to remain there for the medium to long term.

Both possibilities depend on the rent bearing some reasonable relationship to the market value of the property, and the second one depends on your ability to manage a mortgage.

I would love for your 2nd option to be a possibility. The rent I currently pay is in excess of what a mortgage repayment would be (for a 90% mortgage over 30 years for the going rate of similar apartments) and even using the higher stress test rate we could still comfortably afford the repayments. Unfortunately, we've recently tried to get a mortgage and our lack of continuous regular savings above a certain level and shortage of deposit funds is hampering us (we've travelled a lot and bought and completely paid off a car recently).

Do you think given the special circumstance of us currently living in the apartment and us (by my judgment at least) being a better customer to have than the current owner would allow the bank to lend to us outside their normal criteria? From our conversations about mortgages recently (with a broker and AIB, I don't know what bank is involved here) it doesn't seem like they would do anything for us.